Posted by Jim Andrews | Fri Jan 18th 2008 7:31 a.m.

software, per se, is not patentable. you can't get a patent on code. it's
more subtle than that. it has to be. because one may write the same
functionality in different ways. it's the algorithms. not the code. not the
software. the algorithms define the process. the algorithms and the ideas as
embodied in the working code.

i don't agree that certain types of algorithms should not be patentable. i
think that there are good arguments that to deny certain types of algorithms
patentability is to unreasonably deny the similarity of their nature to
other types of patentable things which are accepted as being patentable.

if we're going to function in a capitalist system where you have to pay the
bills (personally i'd really like something else) then, rob, i don't see why
rights of ownership should not apply to things like algorithms when they
meet reasonable criteria.

your arguments have not so much been addressed to this issue as to the
advantages corporations have in exercising the ability to patent and the
ability to harm others by using patents as a weapon. of course you make good
points here. undeniably. so i agree that the system should be more open to
individuals getting patents, and corps should not be able to fuck around as
they do with patents.


> > there should be recourse to overturn patents when the
> "invention" should not
> > be patentable.
> There are entire classes of "inventions" that are patentable that
> simply should not be patentable. This means that every single
> "invention" of this class should not be patentable. To make such
> "inventions" patentable then allow some to be overturned is a category
> error. Software and Business Methods should not be patentable, the
> public harm this does outweighs any private benefit.
> - Rob.
Your Reply